New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-08-30


.oa,.;roo Ito readers that the Democrats
n,,cb;nc that * TO run the approaching Dem
oc,atic State Convention is not thrown out
Of gear by the Labor party
,,pS FJSEES REQUESTS TO CORNELL
A careful perusal of the opinions OF Jusuces
Hardin and Mcrwin, rendered at the Uuea
General Term Of the supreme Court in the
Jennie McGraw-Fislle will case does no,
Load 10 the absolute conviction thSt
the library OF Cornell University must
lose the million or more Of dollars LETT u
H., the generous testatrix that Governor iill
will be able 10 buy new yacht from his snare
NJ the spoils for breaking the will. The reversal
NJ the Indictment Of Surrogate Lyons OF lompIuns
County rests upon a single proposition, nancy
that as the original charter OF the university
nroyided that il might hold real ana PERSONA
nropcrtv 10 an amount not exceeding s3,ooo'ooV
In the aggregate" and as the property OF inc
university already had exceeded that sum In leoi
when Mrs Fiske died ii could take ho'h'hs
under her will As 20 the fact that the uhNeiS''9
is the oossessor and actual owner oil proPefS
LARGELY in excess OF 600 in value there seems
90 be i,tle or no doubt The value OF the university
property of all kinds al the present time IS prope
bIy not far short OF SO, 100000 and TINS hihouAi
promises TO be largely swcllcd In the future os
tie certain appreciation in the value oil its
Western lands.
But the real controversy In the Soufe VI
Appeals will be over what Justice Merwln Terms
the mature and scope Of the restriction on inc
university" The question is, can any party
other than the state interfere 10 prevent
corporation taking by bcqucst property wh'en
undcr the terms of it's charter it cannot hold?
hat
interested in the estate can interfere as the
contestants in this case. This conclusion Is
chiefly based upon two decisions in the Court OF
Appcals-in White VS. Howard and Chamberlain
VS. Chamberlain As these decisions OF the
highest court In the State, the General Term,
OF course, did not feel at liberty TO disregard
them even though without them the judges might
not have reached the same conclusion But the
Court of Appeals, while it endeavors to avoid
conflict with does not necessarily feel boupi
by. former decision made by its own court
which il believes be erroneous. 1t Is therefore
interesting 10 note that In neither Of the two cases
mentioned upon which the General Term reverse
the judgment was much attention given by the
Court of Appeals TO the point that is OF such
interest to Cornell University. and the cause Of
education. In the Of White VS. Howard less
than sixteen lines OF long opinion are given ~
this question. In fact it only came up with
respect TO little bequest which was made
among many larger ones, and little importance
appears 10 have been attached 10 1t either by
counsel or court. The Chamberlain case brought
out more clearly the point that ian individual
whose interests will be affected by transgression
of the rule may assert and insist upon the limi-
tation as a restriction upon the power Of the
corporation to talSc,' but even there the court
seems TO have been impressed with the doctrine
that doubtless the restrictions upon CORPORA
tons is governmental regulation and one of
policy and TO be enforced by the Government
SO that in view of all the facts in the Fislxc
case that distinguish IL from either OF the above
cases, il seems far from certain that the Court
of Appeals will necessarily feel bound as the
General Term was, BY their former adjudcations.
Moreover, to sustain the contention OF the
university authorities would be q result in ac-
cordance with the holdings not only of the highest
courts In Massachusetts,, Pennsylvania and other
of the most advanced States, but also OF the
United States Supreme Court itself. The argu-
ment is that such restriction in n corporations
charter is put there by the State itself, in
order that 10 that extent IL may control the ac- |
cumulations OF the institution; that In fact it
is part of the contract Of the State with the |
corporation, and that ther efore the State only
can enforce that agreement, In the case OF
Cornell University, the State, so far from seeking
to enforce this provision, has expressly waived |
it by enacting in 1882 an amendment 70 the |
university's charter, permitting 1t 10 receive |
without limit such property real and personal
as has been or may hereafter be given to said |
corporation by gift, grant, devi etc. Professor
Fiske and the other contestants have made an |
agreement among themselves to tho manner |
in which the property shall be distributed IL the |
will is broken. 1t would indeed be unfortunate |
IL the Court of Appeals should find themselves !
unable to agree with the Supreme Court OF the |
United States and bound TO affirm a decision |
which would take from the cause OF education |
the means of collecting of the noblest univer-
sty libraries in the world, and pour the proceeds |
of this large estate into grasping but alleady |
we'll filled hands.
The brand-new comet which Professor Brooks |
has just discovered is reported rs becoming |
brighter" That il the reason why IL docs mot